an examination of ginott's between parent and child …
TRANSCRIPT
AN EXAMINATION OF GINOTT'S BETWEEN PARENT AND CHILD
FOR ILLUSTRATIONS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH
A Thesis
Presented to
The Department of Psychology
Kansas State Teachers College of Emporia
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
by
Samuel B. ~aier
July 1971
!
·it '" ( ,
Approved for the Major Department
&%/~ for the Graduate Council
J-4;d -3~bOb,~ ~
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express his appreciation
to Dr. Dal H. Cass, Dr. W. Maurice McLean, Roy Norris
and Mary Lou McClain for their advice and help, and
to RO for her encouragement and patience.
·5. B. M.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1
Statement of the Problem . • • • • • • • • 1
Statement of the Purpose • • • • • • • • • 2
Procedures • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2
Limitations of the Study ••••••••• 3
Importance of the Study • • • • • • • • • 3
2. DEFINITION OF TERMS • • • • • • • • • • • • 4
The Christian Faith ••••••••••• 4 3. THE NATURE OF MAN ••••• • • • • • • • • 7
4. HOW THE FAITH IS LIVED • • • • • • • • • • • 19
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMI1ENDATIONS •• 35
Conclusions ••••••••••••••• 36
Recommendations •• • • • • • • • • • • • 36
BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 38
APPENDIX • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.• 42
iii
---
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
The work or the minister has brought him into
close relationship with people seeking the meaning of
the Christian faith. This faith has been described
by words and expressions to denote concepts. However,
the terminology has failed to communicate meaning.
Presbyterians declared in a recent treatise
that "Ev&~gelism has a language problem." The author
stated that certain 110rds important in the Christian
faith such as "conversion," "being born again~n "being
saved," "salvation~" no longer give to the citizen of
the last half of the twentieth centu~y a concept of their
original New Testament meaning. The writer declared:
It is clear that we have a language problem in evangelism~ a very difficult language problem. A set of meanings have been fastened on words essential to our venture which obscure their original meaning in scripture, which misrepresent the character of Christian evangelism~ and which alienate ma~y of our church members from the whole enterprise.
lAo Occasional Paper # 5, (New York: The Division of Evangelism of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America).
1
2
The church has tried periodically to update
its language. One notable attempt was The Worshipbook
pUblished in 1970 by The United Presbyterian Church
in the U.S.A. The changes were of the nature of sub
stituting "you have" for "thou hast" and "your" for
"thine" or "thy."2
Statement of the Purpose
The writer, who has had thirty years of experience
interpreting the Christian faith as a minister, has
felt these old forms have failed to express the meaning
of the Christian faith or describe vital Christian
experiences. The purpose of this study was to examine
the personal relationships described in Ginott's book
Between Parent and Child for illustrations of Christian
fai the
Procedures
The following procedures were followed:
Chapter 2 has recorded the basic elements of
the Christian faith. It was developed as a definition
of essential terms.
Through courses in theories of learning and
theories of counseling, the writer became familiar with
psychological terms and concepts and related them to
2Th~ Worshipbook (Westminster Press, 1970), e.g. page 15 ~eI'nal God, you have called us to be members of one body." (Italics mine)
3
the theological concepts of the Christian faith. Chapter
3 was developed as an example of this process.
Ginott's book was examined for illustrations
of the Christian faith. Chapter 4 has recorded some
of these illustrations o
Chapter 5 consists of conclusions and recommen
dations.
Limitations of the Study
This study was limited to Ginott's book ~etween
Farent and Child as it relates to the central concept
of the Christian faith.
Importance of the Study
Ginott made no claim for the Christian content
of his work. Many Christian people have not recognized
that others outside the Christian faith have expressed
Christian concepts in other terms. This study revealed
that materials presented by a psychologist who made
no claim to be a Christian could be used by Christians
to better understand Christian concepts. Such a study
made available to ministers, Christian educators, and
parents would contribute to better understanding of
the central concept of the Christian faith. It was
believed that a thorough understanding would have far
reaching effects on human relationships.
Chapter 2
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The Christian Faith
Basic to the Christian faith has been the concept
that God has done something for man by sending Jesus
Christ into the world. This has meant several important
things.
(1) God thought that the human individual was
vitally important, or He would not have bothered to
send Christ. This was how God expressed His loveo
God in Christ came to share h~~an experience; He suffered
and died to show His great concern. ("For God so loved
the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes
in him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16)
(2) God accepted man the way he was in his imper
fection, limitations and mortality. Traditionally this
has been described by the word "forgiveness." Psycho
logically the word has become "acceptance." ("God shows
his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ
died for us." Romans 5:8)
4
5 (3) Man responded to God's love in trust.
Traditionally the word has been "faith" but in the
psychological concept the word has become "trust."
(4) The resulting life experience has been a
person's ability to accept another person as he was
with all his imperfections as a worthy human being.
Because one was loved, he could love. Because one was
accepted, he could accept others. Because one was for
given, he could forgive. This did not mean that one
would condone everything that another did, but that
he accepted. the other person. This was the way meaning
ful relationships were established.
(5) A person who accepted another made himself
vulnerable to hurt. So crucifixion did take place.
This was the nature of love that cared.
These concepts have been basic in the Biblical
account.
The disciples had spent several years with Jesus.
They had come to know Jesus, but what was more important
Jesus had come to know the disciples thoroughly. He
knew their weaknesses as well as their strengths. He
knew their thoughts it seemed even before they expressed
them. So when Jesus was put to death, there was not
only a kind of sorrow, there was also a kind of relief
because now their secrets about themselves were buried
too. But then came the fearful resurrection day when
Jesus appeared to them again. It was like seeing a
6
ghost. He was the one whom Peter had denied. He was
the one whom all the disciples had forsaken in those
last hours of testing. He knew all about them, how
they quarreled about who was to be the greatest in the
kingdom of heaven. Now they were face to face with
him again. But their fears were turned to joy because
here was the one who knew all about them, and yet who
loved them and forgave them, believed in them, and sent
them out into the world to share this new concept of
life.
This new way of life was the life Jesus lived.
It was exemplified in his treatment of the woman caught
in the act of adultery, the healing of the demoniac,
and many others.
Chapter 3
THE NATURE OF MAN
WHo one really know~ how we learn. There are
only theories about how it takes place. n3
What a comforting thought it has been to learn
that no one actually knows how a person learnsl No
doubt a providential God saw to it that this was one
or the mysteries of life.
How rrightening it would be ir there were those
who really knew how people learned. What would they
teach? What kind of masters of the human race would
they become? What kind of life would they impose upon
their subjects? Who would determine the values? How
would right and wrong be measured?
An early story in the Biblical account indicated
the nature of such a problem. It was about a time when
all men were apparently speaking the same language and
they said:
Come, let us build ourselves a city, and tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name
3John Jones, Lecturer in Psychology, Kansas State Teachers College, and Chief Psychologist, Public Schools, Topeka, Kansas, opening statament in "Theories or Learning" class, 1966.
7
8
for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad uPRn the face of the whole earth. And the Lord said, Behold, they are one people and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will not be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
This was more than a story about how so many languages
came into being, as one was often told in his childhood.
This was a story of the problem of the power and pride
of men. And God has written into the nature of life
Bome safeguards against man succeeding in being God
himself. Man was thwarted in his attempt.
The truth of the matter was not that it was
comforting to know that no one knows how people learn.
Rather it was comforting to know that wh~, one discovered
how people learn, it could not be used as a kind of
mastery over other people. It could only be used as
an enhancement of human relationships. How was it that
one arrived at this kind of conclusion?
Christian theology insisted that in order to
come out with the right answers one must take into oon
sideration the true nature of man. One could even say
4The Bible, Genesis 11:4-9. Biblical quotations used in this thesis are from the Revised Standard Version.
9
that Christian theology took a gestalt view of man
insisting that one could not take only one side of man's .
nature by itself and arrive at anything important.
One must take the whole which involves a paradox o
What was that paradox? Simply stated it was
this: Man was an object, but he was also a subject.
Man was an object which was played upon by outside forces.
He was determined by the circumstances of life. He
was even driven by basic human drives within himself
such as sex, hunger, fear, and anger. Man was an object
in this sense.
But man was also a subject. He caused things
to happen o He acted to control his environment. He
was even able to take an attitude toward his environnlent
when that environment could not be changed. For example,
while waiting for a train that blocked the crossing
for what seemed like a long time, man could choose to
be patient or he could choose to be impatient. He even
had other choices as a subject. He could turn around
and go down a differe~t street where there was an lL~der
pass, or he could decide to do something else while
waiting. Man was a subject. He had the ability to
choose.
Traditionally in the Christian faith this paradox
of man has been described in symbolic language. Man
was called both sinner and saint. He was a child of
nature and a child of God. He was human and divine.
10
He was basically good and he was basically bad. He
was made in the image of God and yet he was also dis
obedient to God. The paradox was a basic part of the
nature of man.
Any view of man, therefore, which did not take
into account both sides of this paradox was in trouble.
For instance the S-R learning theories appeared to view
man as only an object determined by the stimuli which
played upon him. They tended to ignore man as subject.
Skinnerts theory of operant conditioning described
man as an object conditioned by stimuli to perform
according to a desirable pattern shaped by his environ
mente He ignored man as subject. Skinner revealed
this theory in The American Scholar:
The study of human behavior also answers the o1Dical complaint that there is a plain "cussedness" in man which will always thwart efforts to improve him. • • • Dostoievsky claimed to see some plan in it. "Out of sheer ingratitude," he complained, or possibly boasted, "man will play you a dirty trick, just to prove that men are still men and not the keys of a piano."
This is a conceivable neurotic reaction to inept control. A few men may have shown it, and many have enjoyed Dostoievsky's statement because they tend to show it. But that such perversity is fundamental reaction of the human organis~ to controlling conditions is sheer nonsense.
Skinner apparently had no appreciation of man as a sub
ject, able to do anything about his world. He only
reacted. He seemed even to think of himself, not as
5American Scholar, Winte~ 1955-56.
11
a subject, but as an object, responding to the various
stimuli that played upon him. The fo~lowing statement
was addressed to him by Rogers:
From what I understood Dr. Skinner to say, it is his understanding that though he might have thought he chose to come to this meeting, might have thoughthe had a purpose in giving his speech, such thoughts are really illusory. He actually made certain marks on paper and emitted certain sounds here simplybecause his genetic make-up and his past environment had operantly conditioned these sounds, and that he as a person doesn't enter into this. In fact if I get his thinking correctly, from his striotly scien~ific point of view, he, as a parson doesn't exist.
In response Skinner was quoted as saying: "I do aocept
your characterization of my own presence here.,,7
It is important at this point that one recognizes
that Skinner's operant conditioning theory was quite
relevant for the mentally retarded simply because the
ability of the retarded person to perform as SUbject
was severely diminishedo The retarded person funotions
primarily as an object, being shaped by his environment o
He lacks the ability for insight into his own being.
He does not shape his own destiny. But normal children
do not react simply as object. They embrace both sides
of the paradox.
6Rollo May, Psychology and the Human Dilemma (Princeton, N. Jer.: Van Nostrand, 1967), p. 26, quoting Carl R. Rogers, "Learning to Be Free," a paper, 1960.
7Ibido
12
Plant a radish, get a radish, never any doubt. That's why I love vegetables, you know what you're about 1 ••• While with children, it's bewilderin' You don't know until t§e seed is nearly grownJust what you've sown. .
Problems were also found in dealing with man
primarily as a subject. According to Rogers, man was
the one who determined his own life. He was capable
of acting responsibly. Given the right relationships
he would grow naturally toward nmturity.
There was sincerity in this view of man because
it embraced one side of man that was very real. Man
was able to do amazing things to control his own life.
One needed only to look at the field of medicine to
see how man has been able to master his own fate. But
this was not all the picture. Man was limited. He died.
He was imperfect. He was controlled and determined in
life by these human limitations. And the problem that
Rogers seemed to have was that he tended to overlook
this side. In an evaluation of tapes9 which recorded
numerous counseling sessions where the Rogerian approach
was used it was noted the therapists were very good at
reflecting the loneliness and resignation and sadness
of the clients, but they practically never reflected
the anger and hostility and conflict and aggression
STom Jones, The Fantastics, Music Theater, International, 1960, p. lIb;
9Rollo May, ~. cit o , pp. 17-18.
13
which was actually present in many cases. Actually these
deep-seated feelings were often attempts at autonomy too,
but apparently they had been overlooked by those who over
emphasized the rational side of man as the Bubject of life.
In more recent years, Rogers seemed to recognize
the importance of living within the paradox, at least
theoretically. He said:
It is my conviction that a part of modern livingis to face the paradox that, viewed from one perspective, man is a complex machin~. •• On the other hand, in another dimension of his existence, man is 'subjectively free; his personal choice and responsibility account for his own life; he is in fact the architect of himself. • • If in response to this you say, "But these views cannot both be true,1t my answer is, "This is i deep paradox with which we must learn to live." 0
The big question now was, tlHow do we learn to live in
this p&radox1" It seemed that Freud tried to bring
the two aspects of man's paradox into focus. He pointed
to the basic drives within man which he labeled as the
tlid." Sex, hunger, and fear were among the strong con
ditioners of manls actions. Man was, therefore, an
object driven by nature and circumstances of life.
But man had an "ego" also which sought to keep him
tunctioning. The ego took over the subject role to
be in control of life. Most life experiences could be
handled so they were carried through to satisfactory
10Rollo May, 2E. cit., p. 27, quoting Carl R. Rogers, a paper, 1963.
14
conclusions. If, however, something came along in a
person's experience which he could not deal with ade
quately, the ego repressed the threatening factor, evaded
it, or went around it. 50metimes the ego regressed
into earlier, more familiar ground in order to keep
equilibrium. The threats often came from the "super
ego" which was a conditioned part of man, strongly
influenced by society, that is, by man's experience
with other men. Guilt was often one of these strong
~orces which posed a threat to the ego. Freud made
a real attempt to deal with the paradox of life.ll
It has been the author's observation there have
been those who have tried to split the paradox in two
and g~asp one side or the other. Because man was driven
by sex and the inhibiting of this basic drive caused
8evere complications sometimes in the human personality,
same people have looked for a solution in removing all
barriers from sex and letting anything be permissible
it it enabled a person to express his feelings. Or
because man was ridden with guilt which posed a threat
to the proper functioning of the personality, all sense
of guilt should be removed and no judgments be allowed.
Or because man was threatened by anxiety which sometimes
paralyzed and reduced man to a nonfunctioning being,
llErnest R. Hilgard and Gordon H. Bower, Theories 2! Learnin~, Third Edition (New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 19 6).
15 that all cause ~or his being fearful should be removed.
These extreme ideas came from those who apparently thought
they could resolve mants problem on one side o~ the
dilemma.
Others attempting to resolve the paradox went
in the opposite direction, revolting against those who
went overboard on the ~reedom side. These said "control"
was the answer. Responsibility was the big cry. "Send
the draft card burners to Vietnam." "Put all the demon
strators in jail." "Force the hippies to work--all
Social Wel~are people also. 1f
How has it been possible to hold the two sides
of the paradox together? The answer began in the crowning
glory o~ the human being, in his ability to be aware
of himsel~ and o~ his world and of the interaction between
the two. Hegel concluded:
The moral man is not the one who merely wants to do what is right and does it, nor the man withoUt guilt, but he who is conscious of what he is doing. 2
The Christian ~aith has per~ormed a very helpful
task by bringing the two sides of the paradox together
in the ~ollowing way. Man, according to this ~aith,
was a sinner; man was not a per~ect being. He was limited;
he could not do everything he wanted to do. He.was
mortal; it was inevitable he die. Man was not God.
He was a creature. But man, also according to the
12May , ££. cit., p. 38.
16
Christian faith, was a saint; he was a forgiven sinner.
He was accepted by God in this imperfect state. He
was considered as extremely important and valuable in
bimself. Man never arrived at the time when be was
£ree from his need for forgiveness. He was always lim
ited, mortal, and imperfect. He was bound. But neither
did man ever find himself beyond the love of God which
forgave him and accepted him and eared about him. It
was man's awareness of this paradox about his life that
enabled him to live by grace. Because he was loved,
he could love. Because he was forgiven, he could forgive.
Because someone cared about him, he could care about
others. Because God came in Christ to share in the
struggles of man's life, man could share with his fellow
man. This was responding to life where man was botb
bound and tree. It was living responsibly.
What was discovered by looking at .various concepts
of man was that man was trying to become aware of who
he was, both as he was conditioned by bis world and
people around him, and as he acted toward his world
and the people around him. He was becoming aware of
relationships between self and world and how each affected
the other.
One might think the great oeremonies of the
church such as baptism, marriage, and the funeral merely
ritualistic. On the contrary they center in the meaning
of relationships. It is the becoming aware of the
,17
interchange between parent and child, husband and wife,
life and death, man and God, and how they interact upon
each other both as subjects and objects. Likewise the
teaching in the classroom and from the pulpit has to
do with the relationships of man to man, man to God,
God to man, and man with his environment.
Sometimes a person feared to go to a counselor
because he was afraid' of what the counselor would think
or him when all had been revealed. But the counselee
discovered he did not need to fear the counselor. Rather
he discovered he had entered into a relationship in
which he saw himself for what he was and yet discovered
himself accepted.
There was comfort in knowing that when one dis
covered how people learn, it does not invite some to
be lords and others to be slaves. The basis of knowing
was to be aware of oneself in relationships, always
both as object and as subject, and never only as one
or the other.
The Christian faith has looked at man not as
something to manipulate but to appreciate in relation
ships which recognize:
l. Man was important in himself, not for what
he had done, but for what he was as the crown of God's
creation. Each individual person was valuable.
2. The human being was a paradox. He was an
object shap3d by his surroundings and by the very nature
18
of his being. He was also a subject, able to act, to
choose, to decide, and to be aware of himself and the
forces the..t played upon him and his decisions. These
two sides were inseparable.
3. The important role a person played was not
to be a master of other people, but to enter into a
relati.onship that enabled. one to be himself and fulfill
himself' and enabled others to be themselveso
Chapter 4
HOW THE FAITH IS LIVED
This chapter deals with human relationships in
the light of the basic Christian view of man described
in Chapter 2 and illuminated by Chapter 3. Illustra
tions from Ginott's book Betwe~ Parent and Child were
used. The first illustration was of a relationship
between husband and wife.
Husband and Wife
LEADF~: Suppose it is one of those mornings when everything seems to go wrong. The telephonerings, the baby cries, and before you know it, the toast is burnt. Your husband looks over the toaster and says: ItMy Godt When will you learn to make toast?l" What is your reaction?
MRS. A: I would throw the toast in his facel
MRS. B: I would say, "Fix your own damn toastt"
MRS. C: I would be so hurt I could only cry.
LEADER: lrIhat would your husband's words 'make you feel toward him?
PARENTS: l~ger, hate, resentment.
LEADER: vlould it be easy for~you to fix another batch of toast?
MRS. A: Only if I could put some poison in itt
LEADER: And when he left for work, would it be ea~y to clean up the house?
MRS. A: No, the whole day would be ruined.
19
20
LEADER: Suppose that the situation is the same: the toast is burnt but your husband, looking over the situation says, lIGee, honey, it's a rough morning for you--the baby, the phone, and now the toast."
MRS. A: that to mel
-MRS. B:
I would drop dead ir my husband said
I would feel wonderfull
MRS. C: ki5s him o
I would reel so good I would hug and
LEADER: Why?--that baby is still crying and . the toast is still burnt.
PARENTS: That wouldn't rna tter.
LEADER: What would make the difference?
MRS. B: You feel kind of grateful that he didn't criticize you--that he was with you, not against y~.
LEADER: And when your husband lert ror work, would it be dirficult to clean up the house?
MRS. C: Nol I'd do it with a song.
LEADER: Let me now tell you about a third kind or husband. He looks over the burnt toast and says to you calmly, "Let me show you, honey, how to make toast."
MRS. A: Oh, no. He is even worse than the rirst one. He makes you feel stupid o
LEADER: Let's see how these three different approaches to the toast incident apply to our handling of children.
MRS. A: I see what you're driving at. I always say to my child, "You are old enough to know this, you are old enough to know that. II It must make him rurious. It usually doeso
MRS. B: I always say to my son, "Let me show you, dear, how to do this or that."
MRS. C: I'm so used to being criticized that it comes natural to me. I use exactly the same words my mother used against me when I was a child.
21
and I hated her for it. I never did anything right, and she always made me do things over a
LEADER: And you now find yourself.using the same words with ~our daughter?
MRS. C: Yes. I don't like it at all--1 don't like myself when I do ito
LEADER: You are looking for better ways of talking with your children.
MRS. C: Yes, I sure amI
LEADER: Let's see what we can learn from the burnt toast story. What is it that helped change that mean feeling to loving ones?
MRS. B: The fact that somebody understood you o
MRS. C: Without blaming you.
MRS. A: And without telling you how to improve.
This vignette illustrates the power of words to engender hostility or happiness. The moral of the story is that our responses (words and feelings) can make i3decided difference in the atmosphere of our home.
Examining this illustration for concepts of
man it was easy to recognize the husband who said "My
Godl When will you learn to make toast?" did not have
a very high regard for his wife as a person. He did
not feel or understand who she was as a human being
faced with a real struggle. He saw her as useful to
himself for his own purposes. He may have seen her
as a subject, one who ought to have been in control
of every situation. He did not see her as one being
13Haim G. Ginott, Between Parent and Child (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969), pp: 28-30.
22
shaped by the circumstances of her immediate environment
of the phone, the baby, the toast.
But the man who says, "Gee honey, it's a rough
morning for you--the baby, the phone, and now the toast,"
was one who saw his wife as an important person. He
was not trying to manipulate her for his own purposes.
He appreciated her as a person. He had entered into
the kind of relationship which was fulfillment for both
of them. His response to her need enabled her to act
with joy and purpose in carrying on her responsibilities.
She became a person who was not just an object but a
subject as wello
On the one hand we had an example of poor rela
tionship in which the husband tried to lord it over his
wife and get her to perform perfectly for his own benefit,
with the disastrous effect of tearing down the relation
ship which bound them together. On the other hand was
an example of a husband with empathy toward his wife.
This made life 'Worth living.
In terms of Christian faith the husband who
said: "Gee honey, ••• n was accepting his wife as
a real hum~~ being, imperfect but loved o
Teacher and Child
A second illustration was of a relationship
betwe~n a kindergarten child and his teacher in contrast
to the relationship between the child and his mother.
23
On his first visit to kindergarten, while mother was still with him, Bruce, age five, looked over the paintings on the wall and asked loudly, "Who made these ugly pictures?"
Mother was embarrassed. She looked at her son disapprovingly, and hastened to tell him, "It's not nice to call the pictures ugly when they are so pretty."
The teacher, who understood the meaning of the question, smiled and said, "In here you don't have to paint pretty pictures •. You can paint mean pictures if you feel like it." A big smile appeared on Bruce's face, for now he had the answer to his hidden question: "What happens to a boy who doesn't paint so well?".
Next Bruce picked up a broken fire engine and asked self-righteously, "Who broke this fire engine?" Mother answered, "What difference does it make to you who broke it? You don't know anyone here."
Bruce was not really interested in names. He wanted to find out what happened to boys who broak toys. Understanding the question, the teacher gave an appropriate answer: "Toys are for playing. Sometimes they get broken. It happens."
Bruce seemed satisfied. His interviewing skill had netted him the necessary information: "This grownup is pretty nice. She does not get angry quickly, even When a picture comes out ugly or a toy is broken. I don't have to be afraid. It is safe to stay here. 1t Bruce waved good-bye to his mother and went over to thi4teacher to start his rirst day in kindergarten o
In this situation Bruce's mother failed to under
stand the meaning of relationshipo She was concerned
about using her power over Bruce to make him behave
in certain ways that she considered good but was failing,
and was embarrassed by the result.
--------~-----
14Ibid., pp. 22-23.
24 The teacher understood the reelings or Bruce.
She saw him as a real person. Behind what he had said
were the real rears he held in his heart about being
accepted as a worthy person, even when he did not perform
to perfection. The teacher, responding to these reelings,
established with Bruce an immediate relationship which
would be meaningful to both of them. It was a matter
or mutual acceptance which would make their experience
together rewarding. This was living the Christian raith.
Parent and Child
Host of Ginott's illustrations were in the area
or the parent-child relationship.
Carol, age twelve, was tense and tearful. Her favorite cousin was going home after staying with her during the s~~er.
CAROL: (with tears in her eyes) Susie is going away. I'll be all alone again.
MOTHER: You'll find another friend. , . -.
CAROL: I'll be so lonely.
MOTHER: You'll get over it.
CAROL: Oh, mothert (Sobs.) -
MOTHER: You are twelve years old and still such a crybaby.
Carol gave mother a deadly look an~5escaped to her room, closing the door behind her.
I In this episode, a mother responded out of her
desire to manipulate Carol so she did not bother the
15Ibid., p. 23.
25 mother with her tears and disappointment. The mother
avoided the true reelings of the daughter and used her
power to cover them. This destroyed the relationship.
Ginott suggested the matter could.have been
handled with the deepening of an intimate relationship
between mother and daughter.
This episode should have had a happier ending. A child's feeling must be taken seriously, even though the situation itself is not very serious. In mother's eyes a summer separation may be too minor a crisis for tears, but her response need not have lacked sympathy. Mother might have said to herself, "Carol is distressed. I can help her best by showing that I understand what pains her." To her daughter she might have said any or all of the ~ 01lowing :
nIt will be lonely without Susie."
nyou miss her already." -tilt is hard to be apart when you are so used
to being together."
"The house must seem kind of empty to.you without Susie around."
Such responses create intimacy between parent and child. When the child feels understood, his loneliness and hurt diminish, because they are understood, and his love for mother is deepened because ahe understands. Mother's sympathy serygs as an emotional band-aid for the bruised ego.
When one has failed to see a person as being
ahaped by his experiences and by his makeup as a human
being, one has failed in his relationship to that person.
When one has respect for the way another person feels
l6~., pp. 23-21+.
26
he enables that person to deal with his own feelings
more adequately. Ginott explained it this way:
When a child is in the midst of strong emotions, he cannot listen to anyone. He cannot accept advice or consolation or constructive criticism. He wants us to understand him. He wants us to understand what is going on inside himself at that particular moment. Furthermore, he wants to be understood without having to disclose fUlly what he is experiencing. It is a game in which he reveals only a little of what he feels needing to have us guess the rest.
A child's strong feelings do not disappear when he is told, "It is not nice to feel that way," or when the parent tries to convince him that he "has no reason to feel that way." Strong feelings do not vanish by being banished; they do diminish in intensity and lose their sharp edges when thel?istener accepts them with sympathy and understandingo
~e Christian faith of acceptance produced a desirable
result.
Eric, age nine, came home fUll of anger. His class was scheduled to go for a picnic, but it was raining. Mother decided to use a new approach. She refrained from cliches that in the past had only made things worse: "There is no use crying over rained-out picnics." "There will be other days for fun." "I didn't make it rain, you know, 80 why are you angry at, me ?"
.To herself she said, "My son has strong feelings
about missing the picnic. He is disappointed. He is sharing his disappointment with me by showing me bis anger. He is entitled to his emotions. I can best help him by showing understanding and respect for his feelings." To Eric she said:
MOTHER: You seem very disappointed.
ERIC: Yes.
MOTHER: You wanted very much to go to this picnic.
ERIC: I sure dido
17Ibido, pp. 26-27.
27
MOTHER: You had everything ready and then the darn rain came.
ERIC: Yes, that's exactly right.
There was a moment of silence and then Eric said, ttOh, well, there will be other days. tt
His anger seemed to have vanished and he was quite cooperative the rest of the afternoon. Usually when Eric came home angry, the whole household would be upset. Sooner or later he provoked every member of the family. Peace would not ret~gn until he was tinally asleep late in the eveningo
Someone may object this was manipulation, the
parent using a device to prevent a child from becoming
a bother to the parent. Yet this kind of treatment
met the basic Christian requirement to take the time
and trouble to accept the feelings of the child and
show how important he was as a person. The result has
shown itself desirable but mainly the relationship is
deepening.
When a child says, PI never have good luck," no argument or explanation will change his belief. For every instance of good fortune that we mention, he will respond with two tales of misfortune. All we can do is to show him how intimately we understand the feelings that lead him to his belief:
SON: I never have good luck.
MOTHER: You really feel that way?
SON: Yes.
MOTHER: So when you playa game you think inside yourself, nI'm not going to win. I don't have luck."
SON: Yes, that's exactly what I think.
18~., pp. 25-26.
28
MOTHER: In school, ir you know the answer you think, "Today the teacher is not going to call me."
SON: Yes.
MOTHER: But ir you didn't do the homework, you think,. "Today she is going to calIon me."
SON: Yes.
MOTHER: I guess you can give me many more examples.
SON: Sure ••• like ror instance (child gives examples) •
MOTHER: I am interested in what you think about luck 0 If something happens that you think is bad luck, or even good luck, cone and tell me and we'll talk about it.
This conversation may not change the child's belier in his bad luck. It may, however, convey to him ~~w lUc~y he is to have such an understandingmother.
With an understanding mother, a child and parent
can enter into a meaningful relationship, and find life
is neither frightening nor all "bad luck." This living
out the Christian raith or acceptance made for joy.
Anger
A problem in relationship was the reeling of
anger. Orten anger has been taught as being wrong.
Experienclng anger h~s resulted in a reeling of guilt
and ex:pl~essing anger has made one reel sinful. This
has broken relationships. It has denied that we were
human. It has insisted we be only SUbjects and no~
objects. Ginott described what happens:
19~., pp. 36-37.
29
With our own children, we try to be patient; in fact, so patient that sooner or later we must explode. We are afraid that our anger may ba harmful to children, so we hold it in, as a skin diver holds his breath. In both instances, however, the capacity for holding in is rather limited.
When we lose our temper, we act as though we have lost our sanity. We say and do things to our children that we would hesitate to inflict on an enemy. We yell, insult, and hit below the belt. When the fanfare is over, we feel gu.ilty and we solemnly resolve never to render a repeat performance. But anger soon strikes again, undoing our good intentions. Once more we lash out at those to whose2~elfare we have dedicated our life and fortune.
If one were able to suppress his feeling of
anger and never burst out into demonstrative acts, one
would be living a lie, pretending to be something he
is not, never bothered by outward circumstances. This
kind of person was desensitized to human relationships
and missed much of what it means to be alive.
Ginott suggested an alternative which was based
on the fact that a person was both subject and object:
There is a place for parental anger in child education. In fact, failure to get angry at certain moments would only convey to the child indifference, not goodness. Those who care cannot altogether shun anger. This does not mean violence; it only means that they can stand and understand a~~er which says: "There are limits to my tolerance."
Expression of our angry feelings should never
attack the child's personality or character.
These assumptions should be implemented in concrete procedures for dealing with anger. The first step in handling turbulent feelings is to identify
20ill.£., p. 56. 21~., p. 57.
30
them loudly by name. This gives a warning to whomever it may concern to make amends or to take precautions.
"I feel annoyed."
HI feel irritated."
If our short statements and long faces have not brought relief, we proceed to the second step. We express our anger with increasing intensity:
"I feel angry."
"I feel very angry."
"I feel very, very angry."
"I feel furious."
Sometimes the mere statement of our feelings (without explanations) stops the child from acting up. At other times it may be necessary to proceed to the third step, which is to give the reason for our anger, to state our inner reactions, and wishful actions.
"When I see the shoes and the socks and the shirts and the sweaters spread allover the floor, I get angry, I get furious. I feel like opening the window and throwing the whole mess into the middle of the street."
"It makes me angry to see you hit your brother. I get so mad inside myself that I see red. I start boiling. I can never allow you to hurt him."
nWhen I see all of you rush away from dinner to watch TV, and leave me with the dirty dishes and greasy pans, I feel murderousl I get so mad I fume insidel I feel like taking every dish and breaking it on the TV setl n
Rwhen I call you for dinner and you don't come, I get angry. I say to myself, 'I cooked a good meal and I want some appreciation, not frustrationl"
This approach allows parents to give vent to their anger without causing damage. On the contrary, it may even illustrate an important lesson in how to express anger safely. The child may learn that his own anger is not catastrophic, that it can be
31
discharged without destroying anyone. This lesson will require more than just expression of anger by parents. It will require that parents point out to their children acceptable ehann~ls of emotional expression and demonstrate to t~~m safe and respectable ways of liquidating anger.
Anger should so come out that it brings some relief to the parent, some insight to the chil~~ and no harmful side effects to either of them. J
An expression of anger should deepen a relation
ship because it was honest and yet not destructive of
another individual. It was a revelation of true self,
not a pretense. God's dealing with human beings was
always to help and to heal and not to destroy. The
action of a parent who wanted to live out his Christian
faith sought to heal through acceptance.
Truth and Falsehood- --.;------Why do children lie?--Sometimes they lie because
they are not allowed to tell the truth. When a child tells his mother that he hates his brother, she may spank him for telling the truth. If he turns around then and there and declares the obvious lie that he now loves his brother, mother may reward him with a hug and a kiss. What is the child to conclude from such an experience? He may conclude that truth hurts, that dishonesty rewards, and that mother loves little liars.
If we want to teach honesty, then we must be prepared to listen to bitter truths as well as to pleasant truths. If a child is to grow up honest, he must not be encouraged to lie about his feelings, be they positive, negative, or ambivalent. It is from our reactions to his "expressed feelings that the child learns whether or not honesty is the best policy.
22Ibid ., pp. 58-59. 23Ibid., p. 57.
32
Lies that tell truths--When punished for truth, children lie in self-defense.
Parents should not ask questions that are likely to cause defensive lying. Children resent being interrogated by a parent, especially when they suspect that the answers are already known. They hate questions that are traps, questions that force them to choose between the awkward lie or an embarrassingconfession.
Quentin, age seven, broke a new gun given to him by his father. He became frightened and hid the broken pieces in the basement. When father found the remains of the gun, he fired off a few questions that led to an explosion.
FATHER: Where is your new gun?
QUENTIN: It's somewhere.
FATHER:- I didn't see you playing with it. -
QUEJiTIN: I don't know where it is.
FATHER: Find it. I want to see it. .- .. QUENTIN: Maybe someone stole the gun.
FATHER: You are a damned liarl You broke the gun! Don't think you can get away-with it. If there's one thing I hate, it's a liar!
And father gave him a spanking he would long remember.
This was an unnecessary battle. Instead of sneakingly playing detective and prosecutor, father would have been more helpful to his son by saying:
"I see your new gun is broken." -WIt did not last long." - .
"It's a pity. It's expensive."
The child might have learned some valuable lessons: "Father understands. I can tell him my troubles. I must take better care of his gifts."
Our policy towards lying is clear: on the one hand, we should not play D.A. or ask for confessions
33
or make a federal case out of a tall story. On the other hand, we should not hesitate to call a spade a spade. When we find that the child's library book is overdue. we should not ask, "Have you returned the book to the library? Are you sure? How come it's still on your desk?"
Instead" we state, "I see your library book is overdue. '
When the school informs us that our child has railed his arithmetic test, we should not ask him, -Did you pass yo~ arithmetic exam? Are you sure? Well, lying won't help you this time! We talked with your teacher and we know that you failed miserably."
Instead, we tell our child directly, "The arithmetic teacher told us that you have failed the test. We are worried and wonder how to be of help.u
In short» we do not provoke the child into defensive lying, ncr do we intentionally set up opportunities fOI' lying. When a child does lie, our reaction should not be hysterical and moralistic,but factual and realistic. We want our child to learn that there is no. need to lie to us. 24
Ginott has insisted we recognize how a person
feels and acknowledge him as a worthy person. He has
insisted that if a parent were honest in accepting a
child for who he was, even with feelings of anger or
hatred or guilt at times (the whole child and not just
part of him) then one had a better chance of nurturing
honesty in the child and establishing a relationship
with him. The rejection of a child's inner feelings
drives him to a state of alienation. It destroys meaning
ful rolationship. A child bas no need to lie when a
24Ibid g , pp. 68-71.
34
parent is able to deal properly with the wholeness or
the child and he in turn has been able 'to accept who
he was.
To Ginott, i't was important that the child lmow
he was important as a person, that his selr image not
be destroyed, that there was no need to lie, and that
the paren't understood how the child felt. The parent
child relationship could then be alive.
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The writer has stated the central concept or
the Christian faith out of his own years of experience
and familiarity with Biblical and theological accounts.
That statement included the basic idea that God has
dealt with man in an accepting way. Man has responded
by accepting himself and others about him. Meaningful
relationships result.
It has been neoessary for the writer to become
tamiliar with psychological authors such as Skinner,
Rogers, and Freud so that the ternlinology or the psycho
logical discipline could be understood and equated with
theological language. As a result "forgiveness" has -
been equated with Uacceptance" and "faith" with "trust."
Several psychological views have been presented and
notations made conoerning certain deficiencies as viewed
trom the theological position o
Finally this theological-psychological under
standing was used to examine one or Ginott's books to
show that the Christian concept is deeply imbedded in
this author's illustrative material even though he makes
no such claim.
35
36
Conclusions
As a result of this study certain general con
clusions were drawIl.
(1) Another discipline dealing with human rela
tionships expresses concepts similar to the central
concept of the Christian faith in different but under
standable terms.
(2) Acceptance of self is necessary before a
person can treat others with acceptance.
(3) Terminology of the Christian faith is dif
ficult to learn. Terminology of the psychological
discipline is equally as difficult o
(4) A Christian can recognize another person
as having a similar set of human values even though
that person does not confess the Christian faith.
(5) It is concluded that fUrther study of this
subject would enlarge the understanding of the subject o
(6) According to the author Ginott expresses
Christian concepts o
Recommendations
(1) It is recommended that a similar study of other
disciplines such as sociology and literature be made o
(2) It is recommended that dialogues and descrip
tions of human encounters similar to those described
by Ginott be used in Christian education materials in
church schools o
Lf.
XHdWfJO1'19:r9:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Bolles, Robert C. Theory of Motivation. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. --
Bonnell, John Sutherland. Psycholog~ for Pastor and r948:e. New York and London: Harper eSc Brothers,
Brown, Robert McAfee. The Significance o~ the Church. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 195b:
Cox, Harvey. The Secular City. New York: Macmillan Company, 1'9b5'0
Dittes, James E. The Church in the 1o'lay. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967.
Doniger, Simon (ed.). ~~ of Pastoral Psychology.Great Neck, New York: Pastoral Psychology Press, 1952.
Flewelling, Ralph Tyler. The Things That Matter Most. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1946. ----
Ginott, Haim G. Between Parent eSc Child. New York: ~he Macmillan Company, 1965.
____~__• Between Parent & Teenager. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969.
Hilgard, Ernest R. and Gordon H. Bower. Theories of Learning. Third Edition. Ne\<l York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
Hiltner, Seward. The Counselor in Co~mselin&. New York and NashvIIre: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1952.
Hofmann, Hans. Religion and Mental Health. New York: Harper & Brothers, 19bI7 .
Jersild, Arthur T. ~ ~YChOlogy of Adolescence. 2nd Edition. New York: e Macmillan Company, 19630
38
39
Joint Committee on Worship for Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in the United States, The United Presbyterian Church in the United States or America. The Worshipbook. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970.
Kemp, Charles. Pastoral Preaching. St. Louis, Missouri: ~e.Bethany Press, 1963.
LeFevre, Perry. Man: Six Modern Intergretations. _ Philadelphia: The Geneva Press, 196 •
Lindzey, Gardner, and Calvin S. Hall. Theories of Personality: PrimarISources and Research. NeW-York: Harper & Row, 1965. --
May, Rollo. Psychology and the Human Dilemma. Princeton, Hew Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1967.
Nicholls, Willi.s.m (ed.). conflictin~ Images 2!: ~. Iew York: The Seabury Press, 196 •
Horthridge, W. L. Di~or1ers of the Emotional and Spiritual Life. Great NeCK',I«;"w York: Channel Press,1961 0 --
Oates, Wayne E. C~i8t and Selfhood. New York: Association Press, 1961. --
Patterson, C. H. Theories of Counseling and Psychotherapy. New York, Evanston, and London: Harper&Row, 1966.
Roberts, David E. PsychotheraPI and ~ Christian View 2t Man. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950.
Shaftel, Fannie R., and George Shaftel. Role-Playing . for Social Values. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, Inc., 1967.
Shedd, Charlie W. The Pastoral Ministry of Church Officers. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 196$.
Smart, James D. ~ Old Testament in Dialogue with Modern Man. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964. ---
Standal, Stanley W., and Raymond J. Corsini. Critical Incidents in PsychotheraPl. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Tillich, Paulo The Eternal Now. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963. --
40 __~_. '!'he New Being. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 19:5"5'.
____=-__• Mora1itx and Bexond. New York and Evanston: Harper &Row, 19b3:
_______• Theology of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.
B. PERIODICALS
Ashmore, Harry S;. "Where Have All the Liberals Gone 1" ~ Center Magazine, II (July, 1969), pp. 30-39.
Bollinger, Richard A. "Effort: Key to a Workable Marriage," Menninger Quarterly, XXIII (Fall, 1969), pp. 23-24.
Cavell, Marica. "Visions of a New Religion," Saturday Review, LIII (Dec. 19, 1970), pp. 12-14, 43-~~.
Gilbert, Richard R. "Jesus Christ Superstar," Presbxte::oian !4..f.!, XXIV (March 1, 1971), pp. 20-21, 36-37.
Heider, Grace M. "What Makes a Good Parent," Children (Nov.-Dec., 1960), pp. 207-212.
MacLeisb, Archibald. "The Revolt of the Diminished Man," - Saturday Review, LrI (June 7, 1969), pp. 16-19, 61.
~ A • •
Modlin, Herbert. "Hope for the Family That is Failing," Menninge~ Quarter!z, XXII (Winter, 1968-69), pp. 1521. .
Ott, Heinrich. "Language and Understanding'," Union Seminary Quarterly Review, XXI (March, 1966), pp. 275~93. '
Pruyser, Paul W. "Trends and Issues in Community Psychiatry," McCormick Quar~erlx, XXI (JUly, 1967), pp. 9-22.
Reich, Charles A. "Reflections (The New Generation)," The New Yorker,.XLVI (Sept. 26,1970), PP. 42-46, EB; ;0; 53-54, 56, 59-64, 66, 69-70, 74-76, 79-80, 82~86, 89-92, 95-98, 100-102, 104-106, 108-111.
Richie, Jeanne. tiThe Unresponsive Pew," The Christian Century, LXXXVI (October 8, 1969), pp:-I278-1281.
41
Ross, James Fo "On the Relationships of Philosophy and Theology,"'Union Seminary Quarterly Review, XXVI (Fall, 1970), pp. 3-17.
SchIerbaum, Ruthanne. "The High Price of Rearing Children," Colloquy, II (June, 1969), pp. 13-15. .
Simon, Sidney. "An Alumnus Looks at the Grading Game," Trends, III (September, 1970), pp. 20-22 0
Stevenson, Ian. ItAssumptions of Religion and Psychiatry," Pastoral Psychology (June, 1969), pp. 41-50.
Watermulder, David B. "It's All Right to Cry," Meditation (March 1, 1970), p. 9.
C. PAMPHLETS
Klemme, Dr. Herbert o Toward Understanding Change.
Henninger, Catharine 'ttl., and Margaret Lane. "What Wive s Can do to Solve the Communication Problem."
Henninger, Karl. "Psychiatry in n Changing Society." A paper based on a presentation at the 20th Mental Hospital Institute, held September 30 to October 1, 1968, in Washington, D. C.
Murphy, Lois B. "Problems in Recognizing Emotional Disturbances in Children o " This paper, the Dorothy Hutchinson Memorial Lecture, was presented at the CWLA Southwest Regional Conference, Dallas, Texas, April 2, 1963.
Smith, Sydney. "Delinquency and the Panacea of Punishment." Reprinted from Federal Probation, September, 19650
D. OTHER MATERIAL
Students. and ~ocietI, A Center Occasional Paper o
Pub11shed by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. Volume I, No.1.
'l'illich, Paul. "A History of Christian Thought," A Stenographic Transcription of Lectures Delivered During the Spring Term, 19530
XION:1IcIcIY
APPENDIX
THE CONCEPT OF LOVE
IN CHRISTIAN TERMS
FORGIVENESS
God does not wait for
a person to be perfect
before He loves that
person and lays down His
life for that person.
"While we were yet sinnerz
Christ died for us."
FAITH
When a person recognizes
how God loves and cares
for and forgives a person,
he can respond to God in
faith, that is, because , .
he is loved he can love;
because he is forgiven,
he can forgive; because
God is this kind of God,
He can be trusted.
equals
equals
IN PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS
ACCEPTANCE
A parent does not wait for
a child to be perfect
before he loves the child.
He accepts the imperfec
tion as normative in the
child as a human being
and reinforces the child's
self concept o
TRUST
Because a child is aware
that his parent thinks of
him as a significant
person and is accepted for
what he is, he can place
his trust in the parent,
share with him his deeper
feelings without fear of
rejection.
43